Splinter, meet log

Having been a little mean to the skeptics in my last post, I have something to confess in the sequel: Sometimes I'm one of them. On certain issues I'm as closed-minded as any skeptic, displaying exactly the same psychology and the same set of responses.

This became clear to me recently when, by coincidence, two different people happened to be in touch with me via e-mail, both trying to convince me that Barack Obama's 1961 birth certificate is, or could be, a fake. In both cases I dismissed the idea out of hand, and even when one correspondent sent me numerous links to videos and blog posts and begged me to look at the evidence with an open mind, I complied in only the most halfhearted way.

I did look at about half the videos, but I was more interested in the rebuttal videos displayed on the YouTube sidebar. I found that any seemingly plausible explanation of the alleged anomalies in the birth certificate was acceptable to me, even if the explanation did not address all the issues.

After an hour or so, I felt I'd given the issue more than a fair shake. In fact, I felt rather proud of myself for being so "open-minded."

Or at least I did, until the same correspondent pointed out that it would take far longer than an hour to properly analyze, or even understand, these complicated technical claims and counterclaims. He added, "I get the feeling you're not really too interested in this," which was true. I just don't think claims of a conspiracy involving Obama's birth certificate are credible, so I'm not interested in spending more than a token amount of time and energy learning about them, and I'm perfectly content to accept the first more-or-less satisfactory evidence that makes the whole issue go away.

And I can't even blame myself for feeling this way, because life is short, I have higher priorities, and I really do believe it's a waste of time and effort to look into every fringe conspiracy scenario.

But ... isn't this exactly what skeptics of the paranormal say to justify their own lack of interest in the details of paranormal cases?

Skeptics find the idea of the paranormal so unlikely that they don't want to waste much time on it. In fact, not only does it strike them as unlikely, but it's also personally distasteful to them, just as conspiracy theories are to me.

Like me, skeptics are not interested in delving deeply into the evidence because they've already concluded that nothing valuable will be obtained.

Like me, they seize on the first apparently acceptable "conventional" explanation for any anomalous findings, even if the explanation doesn't cover all the facts or has been questioned by knowledgeable people.

Like me, they regard the whole controversy as silly, childish, and irrational.

I'm not trying to beat myself up about this. I still think Obama's birth certificate is genuine, and I still think conspiracy theories are mostly stupid. (The main reason I find them stupid is that they are not disprovable; any evidence that casts doubt on the conspiracy is reinterpreted by the conspiracy theorists as part of the cover-up.) But I can't say, in all honesty, that there is some unbridgeable gulf between me and the paranormal skeptics, since I've already demonstrated that I'm perfectly capable of committing all the same errors and relying on all the same psychological defense mechanisms that I've ascribed (I think correctly) to them.

The only real difference between us lies in what we choose to take seriously, and what we choose to shrug off. Everybody has a different "boggle threshold," and what is plausible or at least possible to one person may seem absurd and unthinkable to someone else.

In fact, one of my correspondents unwittingly highlighted this very point. In an effort to show me how sensible and reasonable he is, he wrote: "You know me. I don't believe in mind reading ... I don't believe in ghosts ..."

Possibly not the ideal tack for him to take!

:-)

Comments

[Bruce Siegel]

Intriguing post, Michael. I often question my own conclusions for precisely the reasons you're describing.

But before you go lumping yourself together with the Skeptics, there's at least one big difference between not following up on the alleged birther conspiracy, and failing to take seriously the evidence for psi and the afterlife: Speaking for myself, few things have a greater impact on my peace of mind and overall approach to life than how I view death.

The authenticity of Obama's birth certificate? Not so crucial to my well-being. (Though admittedly, I'm a Democrat). :o)

So it's partly a question of priorities, don't you think? Maybe sanity is not just about what you believe, but what you believe is *important*.

I mean, as plausible as the evidence or counter-evidence may be, there are only so many things you can choose to investigate in one lifetime, right?

[Sandy]

Michael, you don't make a living telling everyone that the conspiracy people are nuts. You don't write books that suggest you know everything there is to know about conspiracy theories, that you have read all the evidence and that in your esteemed opinion they are all nonsense.

You haven't organised groups or held conventions with other anti-conspiracy theorists. You don't make a six-figure income from making appearances at said conventions. You haven't committed any acts of fraud or been dishonest in any way to promote an anti-conspiracy theorist agenda.

There are some pretty important differences between a person who admits to not being all that interested in conspiracy theories, all least not interested enough to watch every youtube video on the matter and a skeptic who claims to have read all the peer-reviewed scientific literature on a subject, but when pressed to discuss it shows a pathetic lack of knowledge.

The difference is a matter of integrity. Skeptics like Wiseman and Randi are not honest about what they are doing. I have no trouble with someone who admits to not knowing much about a subject and who doesn't want to be bothered with it. But when someone makes a living from it by being deceptive, that's different.

[BenSix]

The main reason I find them stupid is that they are not disprovable; any evidence that casts doubt on the conspiracy is reinterpreted by the conspiracy theorists as part of the cover-up.

Conspiracy theories are disprovable; it's just the theorists aren't always willing to accept the point!

[Matt Rouge]

+1 Sandy.

There's a big difference from saying, "Ugh, that's BS and I don't want to know more about it," and, "I know all about it and I know it's BS!"

It sounds as though you're not *into* Birtherism. Good for you. But closed-minded skeptics ARE into the things they oppose. In fact, sometimes it seems they define their whole identity on NOT believing things and feeling superior to others because they don't believe them.

My best friend is pretty much an atheist, but he's not a closed-minded skeptic. He's just plain closed-minded. He doesn't embrace the labels "skeptic" or "atheist" at all because he just wants to push the issue away. It's not his thing, as it were.

People like my friend don't help the cause of getting the truth out, but they don't hurt it much either, since they're not participating in the debate. Media skeptics and their fanboys ARE hurting the cause because they participate in the debate in a disingenuous way.

[Michael Prescott]

Those are good points, Sandy, but I was thinking more about rank-and-file skeptics, not the movement's leaders. It's true, though, that I wouldn't attend a convention of anti-birthers or spend a lot of time trolling on pro-birther sites. The grassroots skeptics who go to Randi's "Amaz!ng" meetings, compulsively hand out one-star reviews to paranormal books they haven't read, and patrol Wikipedia to expunge any pro-psi references do seem to be bit more intense about things.

[Michael Prescott]

Another thing I should have clarified in the main post is that some skeptics do take the time to immerse themselves in the details of the cases. Ray Hyman, Milbourne Christopher, Susan Blackmore, and Keith Augustine come to mind. But many of them - even some of the prominent ones - show no such dedication. Randi, Shermer, and Gardner all seem pretty uninterested in the details, and frequently get key points wrong.

[Paul]

I think you're right Michael in saying that it is similar behaviour to that which we deprecate in some psi sceptics.

Having said that, there seems to me a difference between dismissing an argument about Obama's birth certificate without considering the issue fully because one isn't really that interested, and campaigning about it, without having considered all sides of the issue fully. Especially if on top of that one refuses to properly consider the counter arguments.

My own view is that if a person decides not to fully consider the argument against their position, that is a matter for them unless they are determined to convince others that they hold the correct view. I don't think we're under any obligation to fully consider the counterarguments, but if we choose not to, we may be ill-informed.

In this instance, I suppose you're showing prejudice or bias, I think that's probably something most of us do from time to time.

It seems to me the key is to recognise it honestly - which you seem to me to have done. After all apparently 'the unconsidered life is not worth living' :)

[Cyrus]

Well Michael understand there's a difference between someone trying to convince you of something unlikely, and giving it a half-ass investigation with a prompt opinion...

...And taking that opinion into the context of an entire subculture that attends meetings in Las Vegas and wages "internet war" on believers, all without actually doing the real research.

At that point it's bizarre, who would take something that far without really giving it serious thought?

Well, you can't, because when you give serious thought to subjects like psi... you are no longer a member of the skeptic club. These people will typically, on purpose, delete information to keep themselves ignorant. And that's all very absurd, really.

[Sandy]

Michael, even people who should know better can be uninformed Skeptics sometimes. Look at this blog about Sheldrake's latest edition of The Presence of the Past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature by Graham Lawton, deputy magazine editor of New Scientist. Lawton, without reading the book, has concluded that he would give it a bad review, despite the fact that New Scientist gave a very positive review to the first edition nearly 23 years ago.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/did-we-really-say-that.html

[Sandy]

I hope my last post didn't lead to any confusion. Rupert Sheldrake wrote The Presence of the Past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature. Graham Lawton wrote a critical blog on a book he didn't bother to read.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

Another way in which you don't have a plank in your eye:

You're not a total jerk to the people you're arguing against. As a rule, the closed-minded skeptics are truly nasty. They are like a pack of hyenas enjoying ganging up on a "believer" and mocking him or her together.

You'd think that people so dedicated to the rational and scientific edification of the masses would choose a "Win Friends and Influence People" demeanor for their outreach initiatives, but, alas, it is not so.

Matt

[Michael Duggan]

Another really thought provoking post Michael. When I come across conspiracy theories / controversial subject matter I apply Occam's razor. All things being equal does the evidence support the claim in the face of any contradictory evidence and taking into consideration the prevailing paradigm? In the case of psi, when you do that calculation, the outcome is massively in favour of its occurance. Additionally I would say it doesn't take a long time to arrive at that conclusion if you examine the paucity of skeptical arguments in the face of the evidence. For other areas, let's say HIV denialism, or 911 trutherism, any open minded person who looks at both sides of the argument should quickily come away with the view that both are nonsense, by applying Occam's razor. The same process informs me of the genuineness of Obama's birth certificate, given the sterility of GOP debating tactics. ;-)

[Kris]

Keith I totally uncritically accepted the csicop debunking of the Maria's Shoe case and I did not bother verifying the earplugs used in the Reynold's case were on the entire surgery Augustine is now considered someone with an eye for details. When did this happen?

[Michael Prescott]

"Augustine is now considered someone with an eye for details. When did this happen?"

Well, I disagree with him on many things, but clearly he's spent a lot of time and effort learning about NDEs. He seems very familiar with the database. That isn't true of Randi, Shermer, or Gardner, as far as I can tell.

[Kris]

True but his eyeball fails him a lot when it comes to those nitpicky details that would ruin his arguments.

[Vitor]

Hi,

an interview with me:

http://tinyurl.com/6dbugxz

[fallnotice]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397

"Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, says an analysis of the typefaces used in the Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate that the White House released on April 27 reveals it absolutely to be a forgery."

"The forgers did not want to make the same mistake Dan Rather made," he said. "So, they used letters they picked up from actual 1961 birth certificates, making sure the typeface that appeared in the document was authentic to the era."

The mistake, Irey claims, was to use more than one birth certificate from which to select the letters.

"Even if the typeface was from the period," he said, "the mistake was to forget that each typewriter has its own fingerprint. No two typewriters, even of the same make and model, will type any given letter exactly the same."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=305705

Vogt says that the curved surface on the left margin of the Obama birth certificate suggests the county employee who did the original scanning of the document did not take the individual page out of the binder.

"The result is that all the pages in that book display a parallax distorted image of the lines and type," he says.

He claims, however, that the information typed into the form does not curve like the printed text on the form itself.

http://cache1.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=306953

Barack Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.

"It is impossible to have Obama's certificate number to be four numbers higher than a certificate that came in three days later," Vogt concludes.

Vogt's forensic examination of the birth certificate number on the White House-released long form concluded that the last "1" in the number "10641," as seen in the figure below, is a grayscale image, while the remaining numbers are not. This is, he says, "irrefutable proof that the certificate number is a composite of two numbers and hence a forgery."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=311433

"We've had three CIA agents, retired, and some of their analytical associates look at it, and all came to the same conclusion, that even the long-form was a forged document," Vallely said.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=296881

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546

[Matt Rouge]

Can we go back to global warming?

:)

[Michael Prescott]

I saw the article about Irey, which was linked by one of my email correspondents. But in the comments thread of that article, there's a detailed, persuasive rebuttal, to the effect that variations in the font can be explained by the digital processing of the document as it was compressed, optimized, and converted to different formats.

As a general rule, I'd be skeptical of World Net Daily as a source.

But as I said, I really don't have an open mind about this, and I admit it.

[10.35]

Augustine's agenda has always been to try to swat NDE's. Blackmore is a publicity seeking charlatan who has never conducted a decent experiment in her self congratulating life.
Sorry if this upsets all the high minded on here.

[Pococurante]

AGW is not a belief system. One accepts the data or they don't. And if you don't you're probably not reviewing actual data.

http://theconversation.edu.au/our-effect-on-the-earth-is-real-how-were-geo-engineering-the-planet-1544

[Kris]

you are right 10:35

As it is Augustine used Woerlee's arguments on the Reynold's case and saw those arguments swatted like a bug here.

[Topher Cooper]

I have no problem with people who say, "I think psi is so a priori unlikely that I don't think it is worth my while to investigate." I have even less trouble with people who say, "I thought psi is so a priori unlikely that I hesitated to spend any effort on it, but I did spend a bit of effort and what I found has convinced me that its not worth looking into." I might try to casually convince them otherwise but its an intellectually honest permission. Its the people who say that they know that psi is non-sense, that they know that there is no valid evidence, and that they know that anyone who thinks otherwise is a deluded, anti-rationalist idiot, especially those who work actively at interfering with others considering the evidence objectively, that I consider a pseudo-skeptic.

We all have finite resources to devote to claims -- both mainstream and "fringe" -- and as long as you admit that they might be wrong (and I mean really admit, not the kind of "admission" made by pseudo-skeptics because that is something that "objective rationalists" are supposed to say, even though they consider the probability that they are wrong to be indistinguishable from zero) but just think that there are better things to spend your time on, you are a completely different creature than the pseudo-skeptics.

[Art]

It's more sort of like a trial by jury with a whole lot of witnesses. It's not "Science" but instead like a puzzle with a whole lot of pieces that all fit together to paint a picture that there is a whole lot more to this life than meets the eye. It's not "one" thing, it's a whole lot of things. Sort of like that game show on TV where they put letters up on a board and you have to guess what the saying is. At first no one sees it till finally enough letters are up there - and someone guesses it - and after you know what it is you wonder why it took you so long to see it. That is what "life after death" has been for me. All of a sudden all the pieces of the puzzle were there and I could see the big picture. It just popped out at me. The answer is simple - we are spiritual beings having a physical experience.

[Topher Cooper]

I linked my signature on my previous quote to my programming blog (Objectivism) rather than to my parapsychology/anomalistics/rationality blog MetaSkepticism (this sig properly linked).

[Matt Rouge]

+1 Topher. BTW, I have RSSed your blog. Good stuff!

[Kris]

I warned Woerlee earlier not to take on Chris Carter :)

But Woerlee being Woerlee never listens and now the battle begins.

http://tinyurl.com/3b8bepm

This ought to be fun.

[Art]

There is a literature written by people like Moody, Ring, Sabom, Morris, Fenwick, Van Lommel, etc. that we are all familiar with. Books about George Anderson written by Paul Perry, stories about Eileen Garrett, etc., Hello From Heaven about ADCs, EVP, and popular physics books like The Holographic Universe - about the connection between the paranormal and the holographic universe theory - that cause some of us who read them to have confidence that this life isn't all there is.

But because "duality and separation" seem to be inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe those books aren't enough and they want more, absolute proof, which after all this time - if it were going to happen - most likely all ready would have happened.

Like the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the New Testament the Rich Man asks that Lazarus be sent back to warn his brothers but the Angel replies "even if someone were to rise from the dead they won't believe."

[dmduncan]

I have a rule: Deal with claims on the basis of how important an effect they would have on our lives if those claims were true.

If the effects would be serious, I feel a more serious obligation to look at the evidence more seriously.

While I disregard the notion that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives with hijackers on airplanes to collide with them for good measure, I am not averse to "false flag" conspiracies, because we know that they have occurred. It seems likely that the second Gulf of Tonkin incident falls into this category, and that got us into Viet Nam. More recently, Seymour Hersh reported how Dick Cheney made the suggestion that we attack our own ships with our own ships — disguised to look like Iranian ships, so we could accuse Iran of attacking us, and start a conflict with Iran. That's called a "false flag" attack, and I wish it were so that I lived in a world and in a country where that type of diabolical scheme did not have a strategy textbook name.

But it does, and people who are attracted to power and riches do not think the way those of us who are not deceived by such foibles think.

I have another rule: Do not come to hard conclusions on claims that I am not well educated about, and that would not require urgent decisions and actions on my part even if those claims were true.

To my mind, the Obama birth certificate falls into this category of claim.

[realpc]

Obama's birth certificate is not important, and that's why you aren't interested in it. It would be stupid to try to get away with something like that, and he isn't stupid. But even if he did, it's over and done and so what.

Parapsychology is very different because it is important and it does matter. The pseudo-skeptics have a very different reason for ignoring it -- they are afraid of the possibility that there may be good evidence for psi.

[Kathleen]

"...(skeptics) are afraid of the possibility that there may be good evidence of psi." This is what raises a red flag for me, and what I thought when I read Micheal's post a few days ago. Why would anyone be "afraid" of the possible fact that psi is real? I sense some kind of emotional disturbance with people who appear so hell-bent on discrediting psi. I'm a Democrat, and believe that Obama is a naturally born citizen. The evidence that I've seen has convinced me this is true. But I still remain open to the possibility that it is untrue, though extremely unlikely. Similarly, I lean towards believing in that Near Death Experiences are true and valid, though I still am open to the possibility that they are not. As the Buddhists teach, one should keep their mind open, and be prepared to accept any new revealed truth.

[Matt Rouge]

Kathleen,

I see it like this:

Modern atheism grew explicitly out of push-back against Western Christianity. When the pendulum swings the other way, nuance and subtlety aren't part of the picture. IOW, when people oppose, they oppose all the way.

God was denied, miracles were denied, the afterlife was denied, and so on. It all had to go. Of course, atheists didn't just say that Christianity was 100% false--they said that all religions were 100% false.

They viewed spiritualism as another religion, and they've seen belief in psi and everything else of a paranormal nature as akin to religious belief. It's just human nature to deny everything at once. So, even today, atheists lump everything together and deny it all. They can't change that now. To admit that they were wrong about psi would feel, to them, like getting a cut in shark-infested waters.

Meanwhile, Christianity has had no reason to support anything spiritualist or New Age, since it has its own worldview and customers to protect.

Thus, the belief in psi has been caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of these two worldviews. People don't like to have their worldviews threatened by new information, so I think it's going to take a bit longer before psi is believed in by the majority of the population (which is probably already true) AND people feel comfortable acknowledging this belief. And it will take even longer than that for the media to recognize psi as simply a fact of life.

By the way, it seems pretty clear that ancient societies viewed psi and magic and things like that as everyday realities that no one disbelieved (though there was a lot of useless superstition mixed in). I think the rise of control-oriented monotheistic religions put the kibosh on that, though.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks for the link, Kris. Carter's rebuttal was truly entertaining. (For those unfamiliar with Amazon, you have to click on the Comments link at the end of "Gerry's" review to get to the back-and-forth.)

I found this part of Dr. Woerlee's review interesting: "The analogy of the brain and the television or radio receiver [in Carter's book] is very good, and raises many interesting discussion points. I like it. It is somewhat better than my analogy of a driver in an automobile ..."

This is interesting because it implies that Dr. Woerlee had never encountered that analogy before. Yet the TV/radio analogy is used in virtually all modern discussions of William James' transmission theory; how could Dr. Woerlee have read deeply in the pro-NDE literature and never come across it?

[Michael Prescott]

"I think the rise of control-oriented monotheistic religions put the kibosh on that, though."

In his eccentric but interesting book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind," Julian Jaynes points out that the Hebrew Bible records the persecution and extermination of "the nabim" (prophets, seers), who were apparently the sort of people we might identify as psychics and mediums (though Jaynes has a different interpretation in line with his bicameral mind theory). It appears that people who demonstrated psi abilities were literally hunted down and killed, much as "witches" were later exterminated in Medieval/Renaissance Europe and Puritan America.

Another example would be the ban on the oracles at Delphi and other places, which took effect after Christianity became Rome's state religion. I believe the Eleusinian Mysteries were eventually banned as well.

[Bruce Siegel]

"This is interesting because it implies that Dr. Woerlee had never encountered that analogy before."

Michael, that was my thought exactly as I read his review! I said to myself: What? He's giving credit to Carter for that? Is it just a coincidence I've run into it again and again, and Woerlees's never seen it?

I wonder if he's heard the one about Maria and the tennis shoe on the roof. :o)

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt said:

'"Thus, the belief in psi has been caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of these two worldviews. [science and religion]"

That's a great point. If you're not supported by either of those institutions, you're in trouble.

But it strikes me that there's another institution or sector that's equally unfriendly to psi: commerce. Psi supports a spiritual orientation. And spirituality doesn't sell fancy cars, or tooth whiteners, or antidepressants.

So that gives us parapsychology in one corner, and in the other, science, religion, and big business.

Hardly seems like a fair fight.

[Michael Duggan]

which is why application of psi in business, technology and medicine is so crucial.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

Yes, I read "Bicameral Mind" about 20 years ago. Quite frankly, it freaked me out! I was not convinced by the theory, but the book had a lot of interesting stuff in it.

Bruce,

Excellent point. Psi breaks down barriers and makes people less controlled. Business would like us to be docile purchasers, believing in their myths of abundance.

Cheers,

Matt

[Kris]

Woerlee is by far the weakest NDE skeptic I have ever come across period. Yes I was floored when I read Woerlee's admission he had never once heard of the TV/radio analogy , part of me wanted to ask him what planet has he been on for the past decade since he has decided to grace us with his views on NDES.

Woerlee in the end is a one trick pony. He know anesthesia, that is all he knows, that is all he likes, so every bloody answer he gives will involve anesthesia.

My personal favorite Woerlee moment was when in his discussion with me on the Reynolds case he said besides that, nothing paranormal happened. I nearly spit out my sweet tea with that comment.

[Simon Oakes]

"So, even today, atheists lump everything together and deny it all. They can't change that now. To admit that they were wrong about psi would feel, to them, like getting a cut in shark-infested waters."

Matt’s perceptive point applies equally to consciousness per se. As an example, look at the first dozen or so comments (or more if you can be bothered to read them) on this Guardian article about the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness; a problem acknowledged by many modern philosophers (including those of a materialistic bent).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/17/human-consciousness-brain-activity

For me, the dismissive crassness of these comments stems from more than just philosophical ignorance, and reflects the kind of panic that Matt's wonderful 'cut in shark infested waters' imagery captures so well.

By the way, while here can I say how much I've appreciated the last few threads. I've always found this blog (both Michael and those commenting) impressive, but recently I think everyone has surpassed themselves.

[dmduncan]

The Woerlees are stuck in the 19th century. They have been building a materialist foundation for society at least since Hobbes; Darwin was the missing link they needed to wrap up the story.

They may reject all religion, and paranormal phenomena, but they do so because they believe science made God irrelevant and therefore nonexistent in the 19th century.

It is costly to revise information, and they are comfortable cheapskates in the world they have made. The prospect of being broke and homeless is just too frightening.

[Rudolf Smit]

When Woerlee said that he had never heard of the radio-TV analogy he is not speaking the truth. From the very beginning he has been criticizing Van Lommel's articles and book, wherein Van Lommel very clearly discusses this analogy. So Woerlee does know about it.

The big problem with Woerlee is that he never listens, as is the case with any other pseudo-skeptic. You can explain to him a thousand times certain facts that do not fit his assumptions... he simply continues to ignore them.

It is thus a truly frustrating exercise to have discussions with him, which both Kris Key and I can testify.

Rudolf Smit

[Pearl]

For DMDuncan and anyone else with an hour to spare - a very thoughtful and convincing interview.

http://vimeo.com/20574556

I can understand why people would be afraid to even watch this ,just as Woerlee et al ignore what they don't like.

[Rudolf Smit]

@ Pearl

Can we please stop with those conspiracy theories about 9/11?

But...a final attempt to settle this once and for all.

A few years ago a team of the Technical University in Delft, the Netherlands investigated this whole thing. The team consisted of building engineers, scientists and demolition experts. They had been made available all the construction details of the Twin Towers etc.

After months of careful study, computerized simulations, scrutiny by demolition experts, and so on and so forth, the conclusion was clear: the two buildings had been brought down by the fire caused by the two planes that crashed into the towers. Nothing else!

Mind you - those scientists & engineers of Delft Technical university were a completely independent lot. None of them had an axe to grind with the USA, Arabs or whatever.

But of course the conspiracists will now say that Delft University also took part in the conspiracy... How mad one can be...

And as far as I am concerned this sort of thing has nothing to do with Woerlee's behavior regarding NDE's.

Rudolf Smit

[dmduncan]

Pearl, not true that I don't look at what I do not like to see. In the 1960's and 1970's the US government acting through the IHS forcibly sterilized American Indian women. I don't like the fact that the FBI conducted illegal COINTELPRO ops, or that the CIA was guilty of MKULTRA. I don't like the fact that we have people who conceive of things like Operation Northwoods.

Anyone can search any of those terms and see for themselves that the good guys/us vs. bad guys/them story is propaganda sold by a Bernaysian MSM that operates precisely as Chomsky and Herman said in Manufacturing Consent to mold perception and public opinion.

I haven't seen any evidence of a smoking gun for Bldg 7, and the collapse of Bldg 7 has been addressed convincingly without invoking demolition, although since the doctor in the video is a chemical expert I will consider his opinion about the thermite evidence which had previously been addressed and which he is disputing as an EXPERT.

Everything I mentioned is well documented; what we don't know about MKULTRA we don't know because the CIA destroyed many of the records before they could be obtained, which I presume concealed the worst of what they did.

But I do understand the distrust and suspicion. I'm not in la la land about the world or the sorts of people in power who inhabit it.

[Pearl]

DMD - I was not directing that remark at you at all.It was just a general observation.
I just thought you might be interested to see that interview because of what you said in your post. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear:)

RS - MP started the thread so I think what I posted comes under fair comment.
Are you referring to the two week student vacation project At Delft University? When interviewed the students themselves admit that in two weeks they "couldn't do extensive research" so what they did quote "wasn't strictly scientific." (This is from a programme broadcast on TV in the Netherlands.)
So should I give more weight to something that "wasn't strictly scientific" or a piece of PEER REVIEWED research by an experienced and eminent professor ?

[Pearl]

In addition to the above post -

RS - If that was not the research you were referring to . Please could you post a link to
the research results you are talking about?

[Bruce Siegel]

dmduncan said: "It is costly to revise information, and they are comfortable cheapskates in the world they have made."

What a great sentence. And to follow it up (and make it personal): we continue to cling to that narrow, outmoded worldview until it becomes painfully clear that we're paying more to defend it than to change it.

Anyway, that was my own story back in about 1990, when, as a long-time atheist, I got tired of feeling miserable all the time and was surprised to find myself re-considering possibilities I had long ridiculed. Reading about NDE's opened the floodgates.

[Bruce Siegel]

To clarify my last comment, my personal transformation didn't being with a conscious decision. I didn't say to myself, "I'm feeling bad. I wonder if a spiritual perspective might help." Opening to psi and the afterlife was the last thing I expected or thought I could possibly want.

But when your life isn't working, that softens your defenses. You're vulnerable to new information because at some level, you know the old information isn't working.

[Bruce Siegel]

What bothers me about conspiracy theories is that the focus is, by definition, on the negative. What a drag!

Why spend your time speculating about evil deeds?

[Kris]

Hey Rudolf

At least Woerlee is not on our side ehh :)

[Bruce Siegel]

"Why spend your time speculating about evil deeds?"

Let me change "speculating" to "obsessing". Don't need to speak badly of, among other things, all those thrillers our host has written. :o)

Crime can be fascinating, I admit.

[Matt Rouge]

I don't believe in vast conspiracies because I don't believe that large groups of people can keep their mouth shut.

If 9/11 trutherism were true, not only would everything we we think we know about the US government have to change, our epistemology itself would have to change.

The above is, it turns out, the logic the skeptics often use to try to bat psi and other phenomena away. "We'd have to throw out 500 years of science! Waaaaaaaaa!"

Of course, that isn't true. They'd just have to throw out their particular worldview--but they do say, in effect, that there would be too much change for them to handle.

On the other hand, I *could* handle the basic facts of trutherism if it were true. Knowing that so many people were in on it and could keep their mouths shut would probably blow my mind though.

The same thing for the moon hoax, which is one of the biggest examples of epistemological breakdown that I've ever seen. The idea that so many people could be involved in faking videos and whatnot and scrub it all clean. Hell, the tiniest videotape with outtakes, anything, would reveal the whole thing.

I see another connection here. The skeptics constantly take the pose, "Just show me one scrap of evidence--anything! Why haven't you won Randi's challenge yet" I.e., the pose that *nothing* in support of the paranormal has ever been produced. Here's another case of epistemological breakdown. The evidence has to be shipped in boxcars by rail there's so much of it.

PLUS, the skeptics constantly have to engage in conspiracy theorizing of their own. If results are obtained in a study, it had to be fraud! Maybe Uri Geller was peering through a tiny hole and somehow see the person creating the drawings in the next room. That kind of crap.

There seems to be a epistemological mindset that allows people to believe that "They" are masterminding an elaborate fraud. I am not of that mindset, although I realize that a smallish group of people can keep a secret.

[Art]

"The skeptics constantly take the pose, "Just show me one scrap of evidence--anything! Why haven't you won Randi's challenge yet" I.e., the pose that *nothing* in support of the paranormal has ever been produced."
------------------------------

The times in my life when I've had mystical or transcendental experiences I had no control over it. I didn't "make" or "will" them to happen - they just happened. Moments of telepathy with my wife, precognitive dreams, ADC dreams, synchronicities, etc. My experience has been that when it happens it's wonderful but they didn't seem to originate with "me." Something outside myself was causing them to happen. Even if someone put a gun to my head I couldn't make myself have a mystical experience.

[dmduncan]

I just hope everyone understands the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

That the Twin Towers were brought down by demolitions is a conspiracy theory. That Enron caused the California electricity crisis of 2000 and 2001 was a conspiracy.

[Matt Rouge]

But teh moon Hoax is not a cusspiracy cuz we know its' true.

[dmduncan]

You tell the difference between what is and is not a conspiracy in the same way that you separate what is true from what is false in other areas of experience. You don't get chased away from looking at something because someone else laughs at it and calls it bad names. Folks on this site surely know that.

The ostensible reason for wanting to know about things like the forced sterilization of American Indian women is so that you can stand up to such practices if you discover them happening again. And what has been done to one group can be done to any group. None of us should think any of us is safe because our skin color or our culture is different. What you do to the Jew you do to me. What you do to the American Indian, you do to me.

Perhaps one of the most powerful tests of our spiritual commitments is how we deal with things that test what our ultimate values and beliefs really are; the ultimate spiritual lesson on earth is probably not in how to perfect ways of preserving our lives and comforts, but in how one chooses to SPEND one's life even perhaps to its end in opposing monstrous injustices should that be the outcome of our choice to stand and not look away.

Does spirituality to you mean that you are a spiritual isolationist perfecting your soul like some developing pearl in an oyster all alone under the sea? Or is the society of the world the test you need to develop?

To those who believe life really IS a test, well how can you be tested and be in lifelong comfort?

All tests are stress tests.

I understand many ideas and things people say are uncomfortable to hear or consider.

Welcome to earth. Do the best you can while your skin holds out.

[Roger Knights]

Here's a change of pace, starting Sat. night at 11 PM Pacific time (1 hour from now) on coast to coast AM radio:

"Human Nature Sat 06-18

"Joining Ian Punnett, Professor of Psychology Douglas Kenrick will expose the selfish animalistic underside of human nature and show how human beings are a lot like howling hyenas, with heads full of homicidal tendencies and sexual fantasies."

[Kathleen]

Wonderful and inspiring post, dmduncan. You remind me a bit of Neale Donald Walsch, with his idea that we are here to choose, and in so choosing, become what our true self believes itself to be.

[dmduncan]

Thanks, Kathleen.

[Bruce Siegel]

I don't normally do this, but I'm going to cross-post something I just submitted to the Skeptiko forum. I hope no one minds. Here goes:

Are any of you wondering whether or not psi is genuine, but feel that it simply hasn't been proven one way or the other? Rather than having to rely on the claims of others, do you wish that you could have a psychic experience of your own?

Wow--I just realized this sounds like the start of a sales pitch. Well, it is, actually, in a way. But there's no money involved, just a desire to have some fun and see if we can all learn something.

I'm in the process of re-reading a book called An Experiment With Time. It's a psi classic, written in the early 20th century by J.W. Dunne. I read it in 1992, when I was just opening up to the possibility of psi and the afterlife. The book details an experiment that anyone can do, an experiment that turned out to be life-changing for me.

At the time, I was most definitely straddling the fence. The evidence I was reading about NDEs and other psychic matters seemed persuasive, but also too good to be true. I simply couldn't get past the point of: maybe it's all true, but maybe it's just wishful thinking.

Then I read this book. It describes the author's shock at having some dreams that seemed precognitive, and how, through careful record-keeping and experimentation, he gradually became convinced that the effect was genuine.

He also went to the trouble of teaching friends and relatives to do the experiment, because he wanted to see how common precognition is. (Almost all had great results.)

I'll never forget my own clincher--the dream that finally convinced me. As I said, it was a big day in my life.

Dunne's experiment is described in detail in the book. It's based on writing your dreams down, and I know that sounds simple, but he gives a lot of guidance, all of which is important to achieving a successful result.

He also explains why, if precognition is so common, we don't observe it all the time.

I sure would love it if any of you try Dunne's experiment and let us know what happens!

[Edniv]

Hello all,
I am new to this blog and I find it quite interesting, being new to the whole area of the paranormal. Overall, I love the site, but I find the denial of anthropogenic climate change more than a little disturbing. This is off topic, and I know we all have a bad taste in our mouth from hardnosed skeptics, but there is one fellow out there who I believe has done a good job of showing that we are, indeed, causing the climate to change, and precipitously at that. Here is a video by him and I hope you'll check out his other videos. You'll see he isn't like Randi or Wiseman, and that he makes a genuinely good case for anthropogenic climate change. I'll post it now and let you guys make up your own minds.

http://www.youtube.com/potholer54#p/a/u/0/TRCyctTvuCo

[Michael Prescott]

"Does spirituality to you mean that you are a spiritual isolationist perfecting your soul like some developing pearl in an oyster all alone under the sea? Or is the society of the world the test you need to develop?" - dmduncan

Good questions. The way I see it, both contemplation and activism are valid approaches. On another thread, "no one" said his dharma was that of a warrior, so he would be a fighter in any culture. Using the term dharma loosely, I'd say some people have the dharma of an activist and some have the dharma of a meditator. The Catholic Church recognizes both callings, making room for activist missionaries and cloistered nuns or monks. In the Hebrew tradition there are activist figures like Isaiah and Moses, and contemplative figures like the Essenes and the Kabbalists.

[badocelot]

What everybody else said: there's a great difference between just having an opinion not based on research and being part of a movement whose intent is to annoy the crap out of everybody who don't share that opinion. The former makes you human; the latter makes you asinine.

[no one]

Just to be clear, I think of myself as a recovering warrior.

I like to think that I've placed myself solidly a new and better path. Peace.

Or, then again, maybe it's just my age and lack of opportunity talking.